The Queen at the WI

To be honest, I think the Queen has managed to escape a lot of the criticism that the younger Royals get because when she was young, the press didn't dare to report her foibles. That has given her a certain saint like status which the other Royals might have attained if the press had continued in the same vein. That said, I like having a Royal Family as long as they don't "rule" the country. No amount of money would make me lose my right to privacy, losing my freedom to act as I choose, etc. I think that the money they receive is more than paid for by that alone. They also bring in a lot of revenue and are, by and large, great ambassadors for the UK. Every "Head of State" system had its pros and cons. The biggest drawback I can see is that you don't get to put a cross in a box. However, public feeling can make changes to the way the monarchy runs because ultimately the Royals don't wish to become obsolete.

I think she might win the "Jam" making competition, Floradora9! After all, with all her privileges, she's quite jammy.

She didn't ask to be born into that lifestyle and lifetime job any more than any of us could choose to be born to any other life than our own.
She's there. She fulfils the role she was born and does it well. She's OK by me.

So the debate is not to do with the description of the queen but the word "Elderly* I think you would have still been annoyed if I used the phrase older celebrity!,

Be afraid, be very afraid if you want a President. Think of the US where the best they could come up with was Trump or Clinton! Why would you think we could do better?

I think it has been pointed out before that you ARE NOT A SUBJECT YOU ARE A CITIZEN.. LOOK AT YOUR PASSPORT IF YOU HAVE ONE.
paddyann and others

Perhaps there is a need to SHOUT occasionally as there are none so deaf as those who don't want to hear.

I would not want to be a subject either and am happy to be a citizen in a country with a benign monarchial system which fulfils the apolitical role of Head of State, admired around what is an increasingly chaotic world.

Cheaper than an elected president too, I do like a bargain. I also like a sense of continuity than uncertainty - we have enough of that in the political arena without adding to it by having yet another tier of elections to contend with.

I don’t want a politician as president.

Still no suggestions from the republicans for their choice of president

Can’t be English it would trouble some republicans, has to be British born with all ancestors British born, not wealthy,
age seems to be important to some republicans too.

Why is age an issue..or all ancestors British? You just don't want me as your president Annie ???

I don’t want a president PECS

I know that... and I would prefer not to have royalty. I have no problem with the age or origins of either a president or royal head of state!

Do say who you would choose as President PECS should the queen die tomorrow

Some alternative suggestions would be interesting - definitely not a tired elderly politician, nor a has-been celebrity.
Or an ex-captain of industry who may be more interested in feathers and nests
An academic who could be biased/inward looking?

Someone who has a keen interest in the Commonwealth and the increasing number of countries who still wish to join?

I am having a struggle thinking of anyone suitable, let alone several if we had to have an election.

And someone who would remain silent if their children , grandchildren were critcised in the media, would only own one car , would give away any wealth or property they had inherited .

Don't forget that said president would need to attract as many tourists to prop up our economy.

Isn't Alan Sugar the UK equivalent of Trump? Didn't they both host some TV programme?

Does being in the HOL make him a politician though, Nonnie?
Lord Sugar now, exempt from running for president imo.

Richard Branson ? No too wealthy

Jalima definitely not suggesting him for president, comparing him to Trump! No suggestions at all for president, think it is a bad idea in so many ways. We have quite enough rubbish politicians already.

I think the only comparison is the job they have both done.

I rather like Alan Sugar (ducks for cover)

I like Alan Sugar too, but head of the Commonwealth, would all the countries vote for him

Quite true Jalima. None so blind as those who will not see. Perhaps thats why Paddyann gets so frustrated. Because having one special family treated with such enormous privileges is, frankly wrong. full stop. No one is going to suggest a candidate for presidency on this thread to be criticised by royalists. But that doesn't mean the principle is wrong.
I have no objections to someone inheriting money/land that has been earned legitimately. As for the money they allegedly bring in, as Ive said before the end result does not always justify the means.

paddyann still keeps insisting that she is a 'subject' though annep. I think it has been explained so many times that is why I said that.

I think that many people have so many misconceptions about how the office of Head of State is run that they come out with statements that bear no relation to how it actually is.

Yes, they have wealth and use that to live their private lives. Taxpayers money is used to fund the duties of the office, exactly as it would if we had a presidential system.

We did have a Republic at one time-----it ended in a civil war between the Parliamentarians and the Royalists.

Because Scotland is independent from England the monarchy still remains because the parliamentary leaders have obviously decided to keep the Queen or she'd have been voted out. It's up to those of the Republican party ( SNP ) to get on side with its people in order to vote out the Monarchy.
This hasn't happened, has it ?

should say "none so deaf as those who will not hear". I'm a bit foggy this morning as I have M.E. and coping with ill husband this week - without any kind of help. But then I'm only a lowly subject citizen.